Arch Duke Smokey III

A reporter at Fox News recently outed the identity of one of the Seals who participated in the raid against Bin Laden. The author was concealing his name as a measure against reprisals and now the idiots at fox have gone and blown his cover.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/23/author-...

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/08/fox-...

I've been watching the AMC series "The Killing" in which one of the main characters is a politician who goes to great lengths to cover up the fact that he tried to commit suicide after the death of his wife. My question is this, would knowing that a candidate had once in their life attempted suicide affect your likelihood of voting for them? Personally, while I would never condone suicide, I do not feel that an act of this nature marks a person as unqualified for public service. I've seen strong, intelligent people break down in the face of great pain and uncertainty. Some of these people even went so far as to attempt suicide. I knew 2 who succeeded, and I know one failed. Today he happens to be one of the strongest people I know. While I was very upset at what he did, I find it hard to pass judgment as I would be lying if I said I've never thought about it as I'm sure most people have at one time or another. Nonetheless suicide still carries great stigma in this country. What do you think?

There was a time when I would have been eager to blame our countries problems on the government, or interest groups, or corporate greed, or the rich or the poor or the republicans or the democrats or whoever. Although it's still tempting to fall back into these reassuring if not hopelessly naive narratives, today I'm much more jaded. Today If you ask me what the cause of Americas woes are, I would have to say its the American people. It's us. We're the problem. As long as we fail to improve ourselves, our country will continue to decline. We aren't smart enough, we aren't patient enough, we aren't dedicated enough to create the country we would like to live in. We're all so hypocritical. We're all so easy to manipulate. As individuals, we tell ourselves that we know things that nobody else does, that were surrounded by fools who are sabotaging all of our good work. The funny thing is that those same people think the same about us. And who knows, maybe theres a person out there who's right about their own worth and everybody else's lack of worth. But if you're sitting there reading this right now, chances are its not you. When it comes to the problems of this country, I'm not saying that any other country is better.Because that's not true. Nor am I saying that we are all equally accountable. Because that's not true either. What I'm saying is that we are all more or less accountable in some way or another. Whether through action or inaction we are all part of the problem, and if this country is to improve we must all become part of the solution. There are no good guys or bad guys when it comes to making a better country. Just you. And the lies you tell yourself. Quit lying to yourself. Suck it up America.

We often hear about post traumatic stress disorder afflicting soldiers and police officers. There are also many incidents with civilians who experience traumatic scenes like murders or car crashes. My question is if surgeons or emergency care workers ever experience symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder and if so how often. It would seem to me that witnessing the traumatic injuries that some individuals sustain or losing a patient after a particularly long and stressful surgery would be enough to cause such symptoms but I never hear about this.

The individual mandate was an idea proposed by the heritage foundation in the early 90s. It was backed by Newt Gingrich as an alternative to Hillary-care. The Obama administration adopted the idea because they thought that an idea concocted by a conservative think tank, and implemented by a republican governor would be well received by republicans. Pretty naive but who can blame them for wanting to give the bill a broad appeal.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/10/20/how-a-...

I hear quite a lot of language from the right that equates the left with pure evil. It's not uncommon to speak to a conservative who honestly and wholeheartedly believes American liberals are actively working to undermine and destroy the USA. What I'm asking is, what kind of actions do you think a person with those beliefs is capable of when unchallenged politically? If a person truly believes almost half the country is EVIL, what makes you think they would not do everything in their power to suppress and eliminate that perceived existential threat to the country through any means necessary including imprisonment, torture, and execution. Our country was at the very least involved in funding and logistics for Operation Condor, do you see any possible political scenario where something like that could happen in the US? To what extent?

That is if you think it should be reduced at all.

She's a motherphucking college student. Seriously people have some decency. Cant you guys can disagree with what she says without calling her a slut or a skank? This is a debate over public policy. American citizens should be able to speak out without falling prey to character assassination. Cant we all agree that whatever she does or doesn't do with her body is none of your business? This is somebodies little girl. People need to grow up and start acting like adults. If disagree with this particular legislation then do something productive and responsible about it. Write your senator or some $hit. Just stop acting like a bunch of middle schoolers.

I'm curious about how a persons views on the nature of justice correlate with their political ideology. You don't have to answer all of the questions just give a general summary of your views on the issue.

Do you believe that we live in a world where people generally get what they deserve? Do you believe that we live in a world with an overarching system of justice where good people are rewarded with happiness and material wealth, and bad people are punished with mental and physical suffering? Do you believe that wealthy people are more ethical and poor people more unethical, or do you believe its the other way around? How do you think these beliefs inform your political views? Are you more conservative or liberal? My guess is that liberals will be more likely to see the world as unjust while conservatives will see the world as generally fair. But that's just my hunch.

People complain about the government as if we have no say in the way its run. They as if this entity chosen by the people to represent the people is fundamentally wrong and bad. Whats so bad about representative democracy? Whats so wrong with the majority of people in this country coming together to make big decisions about how this country should be run? Whats wrong with a government elected by the people deciding what is and is not appropriate for corporations to do? This is not a dictatorship. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean you are being unjustly oppressed. If you hate adhering to the will of the majority so much then get out of the country.

What is the root of bigotry and hate? It's often incredibly difficult for people to articulate. But I have a theory. I tend to think that bigotry occurs when you make a judgment about a group of people. Whether that group is a race, religion, nation, political organization profession or whatever. The belief that you can know a person by their group is dangerous and ignorant. Because groups don't think. Groups don't make choices. Groups have no rational thought process. They can be neither good nor bad because they are not individuals. Its wrong because even though there may indeed be a very real pattern occurring, you still run the risk of mis-characterizing tons of individual human beings.

I know that this is a lot to ask from people. Based on my definition, I myself am a bigot. Based on my definition, everybody is a bigot. Based on my definition, even a widely held sentiment like saying that Nazis are evil is indeed bigotry. This is because even though many nazis were indeed bad people, and their overall ideology was wrong, there were plenty of nazis who at the end of the day were good individuals. Oscar Schindler was a Nazi. Oscar Schindler risked his life and gave up his fortune to save the lives of thousands of Jewish workers. Oscar Schindler was not evil.

Its wrong to neglect the individual will of any human being and the only way to be sure you aren't doing this is to recognize it and correct yourself whenever you make a statement like, liberals or conservatives are stupid, or Guido's are annoying, or Muslims are dangerous. It really shouldn't matter whether the belief is widely accepted or not. If your statement is along the lines of

(pronoun) are (adjective) you are being a bigot.

What do you guys think? Is this definition of bigotry to unreasonable? Are some forms of bigotry worse than others? Based on this definition of bigotry, can anybody avoid being a bigot in the long run?

People often like to remark that both republicans and democrats want the same things but disagree on how to achieve them. It's a rather well meaning statement but is it true? I for one do not believe that it is. Sure we both want justice and freedom but do we honestly agree on the definition of these two concepts? What constitutes freedom for republicans may seem like tyranny to democrats. And vice versa. It has less to do with intelligence and logic than philosophical outlook.

What is freedom? Is it something you either have or you don't? Or is it more of a spectrum? Are some people less free than others? Is freedom from government abuse more important than freedom from corporate abuse? Is freedom always a good thing?

For those who answer yes to that last question do you believe that freedom to murder, rape, or steal is a good thing? People often fail to notice that all laws increase freedom as much is they take it away. It's just a matter of where. For instance imagine if the US government started a single payer health care program. That is to say the government takes over insurance instead of leaving them to your employer. Does that increase or decrease freedom? Trick question, the answer is both. For one, it decreases the freedom of insurance companies and it decreases our freedom to choose other sources of insurance. But on the other hand it increases our freedom to move from job to job without having to worry about getting sick. It also increases our freedom to influence the nature of that coverage since we live in a representative democracy and can choose people to represent our interests. So the relevant question to be asked is not, does this law increase freedom or not? The relevant question is whether the freedom it promotes is better than the freedom that it suppresses. This kind of question simply cannot be answered objectively. Which essentially means there is no perfect right answer. All answers are equally flawed.

I know there are a lot of people who would like to believe that the world is black and white. I myself would love it if the world were more simple in this way. It would be awesome if the good guys were the good guys and the bad guys were the bad guys and any given action was either positive or negative. But this is simply not the case. The intellectual community needs to stress the fact that the world is far more complicated than we would like. That debates are not a matter of right or wrong but a matter of competing but relatively equal values. It sucks I know, but can I at least get an amen?

Conservatives often assert that homosexuality is a choice and therefore the government should have no place protecting homosexuals from discrimination. But if that is indeed true, then why should the government defend Christians or Jews or Muslims from discrimination? After all Religion is a choice. Nobody is born religious. Religious belief has no genetic or physical origin. It originates in the mind. Why should it matter if somebody chooses to be something? Discrimination is still discrimination. Its still wrong.

I should however say that not all discrimination is wrong. We discriminate against murderers. And for good reason. Murder causes physical harm to people. The question of whether its right to ostracize violent criminals has less to do with the fact that its a choice than the fact that its a choice that results in the physical harm of others. To accept murderers and their behavior would cause undue physical harm to society. Regardless of what you may believe about the effects of homosexuality on society you cant argue that you are in greater danger with homosexuals running free. You may not think homosexuals are moral people. Just like how anti-semites don't think Jews are moral people. But that doesn't mean its OK for you to discriminate against them. The government has just as much of a right to protect gay people as it does Jews or any religious group for that matter. Your thoughts?

Based on conservative doctrine, homosexuality is a choice. However most studies have found links between sexual orientation and the balance of hormones in the mothers womb during pregnancy. Scientists have found that increased levels of estrogen in the mothers womb, (the hormone linked to femininity) result in homosexuality in male children. Not only have they made this link but they have also found that this difference can manifest itself physically.

It turns out that increased testosterone in the womb can speed up the growth of the ring finger on the fetus. This results is a ring finger that is slightly longer than the pointer finger. This is true for pretty much all straight males aside from those with genetic abnormalities. Gay people on the other hand (no pun intended) tend to have their ring and pointer fingers the same length as a result of lower testosterone and higher estrogen. This correlation between finger length and sexuality has been found to be incredibly accurate.

I know this sounds ridiculous but just ask any gay guy to present his hand. Personally I have found this to be true in every gay male that I met. What do you guys think? How can homosexuality be a choice when it manifests itself physically? Its not as if you choose to be gay and suddenly your ring finger shrinks.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200506/sex...

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/0...

I know what a bunch of you are probably thinking. Your'e thinking "Hell no! What you been smoking you crazy cracker? That's just what the corporations and politicians want!" For you're information I've been smoking weed but that's beside the point. What I'm proposing is that we keep campaign donations secret from everybody including the politicians. If politicians don't know who's donating what to them, they cant extend special favor to the corporations and interests who contribute. We could also offer monetary incentives for politicians to turn in those who try to buy their favor by disclosing their donations.

Should children have to rely on their parents to provide them with a proper education or do children with poor or irresponsible parents deserve quality educations as well? If they do how should the country provide these children with quality educations? Should the state pay for it? If not who?

People on this site go on and on about how politicians are petty liars who will stop short of nothing to gain a few political points for their side. But to be perfectly honest that sounds exaclty like your typical Y!A politics user. Hell it sounds like your typical american citizen. Politicians seem like bigger liars because when they lie, they have millions of people watching them. When they get caught in a lie, it gets publicity. When you lie, nobody gives a $hit because as an individual, your lies dont really matter. Im not trying to say that politicians are saints im just trying to point out that nobody else is. The biggest problem facing america is the american people. Anybody who tells you different is a liar or a politician or both.

Seriously.....contempt of wall street was supposed to be common ground for liberals and conservatives. But now it seems that the right has yet again shown its true colors by coming to the defense of those who made vast fortunes plunging the world economy into ruin. Do you seriously hate liberals so much that you would do this out of spite or are you really just a bunch of hypocrites?

I mean all blanket statements of this type are incredibly stupid but this one happens to be pretty widespread these days. The idea that you can judge the worth of an idea as nebulous as the concept of government. It's like saying people in general are good. Or people in general are bad. How could you possibly say that unless you personally knew and interviewed every person who ever lived? Even if you did it would be impossible to say for sure and your answer would also depend entirely on your conception of good and bad.

Government is an entity that does not exist outside of the minds of human beings. It is nothing more than the shared cooperation of multitudes of human beings, all with diverse and numerous positive and negative qualities. Like any organization of human beings, its success or failure is dependent on those who work within it. Just like how some businesses excel over others, some governments excel over others. Whether or not a government can address any given problem is entirely dependent on the problem.